IMPORTANT POINT
Appellate court has full powers to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence even in appeal against acquittal.
An order of acquittal though strengthens innocence of accused, can be reversed if perverse.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) QUESTIONING correctness of the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High court directing acquittal of the respondent, this appeal has been filed by the State of Uttar pradesh. Learned IV Additional Sessions judge, Lakhimpur, Kheri, had convicted the respondent for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'ipc') and sentenced him for life imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 469/92.

( 2 ) THE prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: complainant Sita Saran (PW 3) filed a written report Ex. Ka-1 on 24. 5. 1991 at P. S. Kotwali, stating that he is a resident of Mohammadpur, p. S. Kotwali, and his sister is married to amritlal, Amkotwa (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') resident of village Amkotwa. Today on 24. 5. 1991 he was going with his brother-in-law (sister's husband) on a bicycle from village Saherua at Amkotwa after delivering milk to Amebarati Lal at village saherua. He was accompanied by Ram lakhan of Amkotwa and his nephew Rajesh. When they reached near Habib's field from village Saherua, two persons named Dinesh, the respondent and Vinod, belonging to village Amkotwa, and armed with country made pistol and knife came out of said field. They caught the complainant's brother-in-law, amrit Lal with his bicycle, took him into habib's field saying they would take revenge by murdering him. Vinod and Dinesh fired from the country made pistols at his brother-in-law who got struck and fell down. Thereafter Dinesh assaulted him with a knife. When the complainant raised an alarm, ramadhar, Prakash and others from village baheiya came and challenged the assailants, who ran away towards Pachkotwa. On being pursued by the people, they threatened them. Thereafter the complainant and others gave up the chase. These persons murdered his brother-in-law because his brother-in-law's brother Radhey Shyam had brought a tractor which was needed by Vinod, but his brother-in-law would not allow Vinod to use it. It is for this reason that the murder was committed. The dead body was lying in the field. The incident took place at 10. 30 a. m. On the basis of the above written report, FIR was written at PS. Kotwali on 24. 5. 1991 at 11. 20 a. m. Thereafter the investigations in the case began. Sub-Inspector Vishwa Nath Pandey prepared the inquest exhibit Ka-2 at the site, photo of the dead body exhibit Ka-10 was taken, specimen of the seal exhibit Ka-11. Memo for recovery of the bicycle at the site, exhibit Ka-12, Memo exhibit Ka-13 for collecting ordinary and blood stained soil from the site. After completing investigations, charge-sheet exhibit Ka-6 was filed against accused Vinod and Dinesh. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. During the pendency of the trial, accused vinod died on 7. 2. 1994. Eight persons were examined to further the prosecution version. PWs. 1 to 4 were stated to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. During trial Om Prakash (PW 1) and Ram Dhan (PW 2) resiled from their statements made during investigation and, therefore, prosecution with the permission of the court, cross-examined them. The trial Court found the evidence of sita Saran and Rajesh Kumar (PWs. 3 and 4) to be cogent and directed conviction as noted above. The respondent filed an appeal questioning the conviction as recorded. The high Court noticed discrepancies in the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4. PW 3 was related to the deceased while PW4 was his son who was aged about 10 years at the time of occurrence. The High Court noticed that motive is not of much importance when credible evidence is available. If found that the motive highlighted was too feeble to be of any consequence. Apart from that the High court found presence of PW3 to be highly improbable. It noticed that there was no sign of dragging at the place of occurrence as was stated by PWs. 3 and 4 and also there was no injury which could be co-related with dragging. All the injuries noticed were either